The top end 27-inch quad core iMacs are definitely going backwards in terms of graphics horsepower for games.
While the older ATI 4850 was an underclocked version of the desktop part, the 5770 is not directly related to the desktop counterpart, sporting 400 instead of 800 shaders. On top of that, the 5770 has less bandwidth (128 vs. 256) than the 4850, which may or may not be offset by the memory (GDDR5 vs. GDDR3).
However, if you don't play games, I would argue the new GPU is better for applications like Photoshop which benefit from a larger memory buffer.
Still, if you play games, it is definitely a step back even if you consider playing DirectX 11 games under windows, because they can be played by a DirectX 10.1 card.

I don't understand your point. Do you mean that these compressed crap on iTunes stores are a waste of money ? Then we agree. I don't think Apple should sell them for 20 bucks when one could buy a Bu-ray movie well below 15 bucks these days. However, Apple is playing smart here by depriving users like me the opportunity to buy and play Blu-ray content on my MB and instead forcing me to buy that compressed crap on iTunes store. Of course I can play Blu-ray on my home theater and enjoy it, but if I can also play it on my Mac, it would a great utility. Besides I don't agree with your point that Apple cinema display and iMac are not good for playing Blu-ray. They are good enough and they should be complimented with the ability to play Blu-ray.

We're getting a bit off-topic with regards to this thread, so I'll keep this brief. There are number of other forums where this debate has been exhausted ad-nauseum.

I think that you and I are in agreement vis-a-vis the inferiority of decreased bit-rate iTunes offerings when compared to DVD, regardless of on what it is watched. Where we disagree is on the equivalence of the "lean-forward" experience (iPad, notebook, desktop monitor viewed at a close distance) to the "lean-back" experience (Full size 1080p television viewed at a distance). The primary advantage to BluRay over DVD is the ability to offer higher resolution video and multi-channel sound at higher data-rates. On small screens and low-power computer speakers, these advantages are not leveraged to their full potential. I would argue that they are so minimally leveraged as to be unnoticeable. Hence my stance that the relative premium pricing on BluRay (as compared to DVD) is a waste of money if not viewed on appropriate equipment.

Can you elaborate? Unless you have more than a 20mb connection why would n-protocol/hardware be better than g-protocol/hardware? You probably get a better reception over a greater distance, but other than that???

Mac OS X WINS. No question about that.
iLife. WIN for the iMac.
So the Dell has an i7 instead of an i5, but the clock is slightly lower, so we can pretty much say they are TIED.
The iMac WINS in RAM since it's 1333Mhz versus 1066Mhz
Both have the same HD. TIED
iMac's ATI 5750 not only is faster by itself, but its GDDR5 is also more advanced than the Dell's GDDR3 memory. iMac WINS, which is quite satisfying since it proves Apple isn't 3 years behind in GPU tech anymore. And the 5450 is Dell's recommended option. LOL
The UltraSharp is LED backlit, but doesn't have IPS. I've seen IPS and non-IPS screens side-by-side, and it is a noticeable difference. iMac WINS
The DVD is faster on the Dell (probably because of the vertical position on the iMac), but strangely no Double Layer. TIED
Both have 2.1 speakers with no fluff, and both have 7.1. However, the iMac has Optical I/O, something the Dell lacks.WIN for the iMac.
The Dell has Wireless-N but no Bluetooth. iMac WINS
I gave the Dell a wireless set with some fluff to compensate for Magic Mouse's own fluff. TIED
iMac has a precision aluminum enclosure. Dell has a painted plastic enclosure. iMac WINS
iMac has an SDXC card slot. Dell doesn't have a card reader at all. iMac WINS
No iSight or Mic for the Dell either. iMac WINS

So the iMac won 10 (9 if you are a M$ sheep), tied 4, and lost none.
Please DO NOTE that while iMac's memory come in 2x2Gb DIMMs, Dell's come in 4x1Gb DIMMs. Yay to Dell cheapo bastards.

Of course anyone who typically takes shots at Apple doesn't buy from Dell so it's all moot point... you could newegg that system for dirt cheap. Unfair comparison? Sure.. but you need to realize what people are comparing against Apple before you go off on tangents like this IMHO.

As the title says, 11 days ago (unaware of the refresh) I purchased the low end previous generation iMac (3.06gHz core 2 duo, 4gb ram, geforce 9400). It appears to me that apple charges a 10% restocking fee if a computer is returned within 14 days of the purchase date (please let me know if this is incorrect). Is it worth my money to return the previous generation in order to get the refreshed intel i3 generation? Aside from the processor upgrade and the graphical update, it seems like an irrelevant refresh.

Any opinions on this please?

Take it back to your local Apple Store. Today. This afternoon, if possible. And be nice about it. No, be exceedingly nice. The store manager has the power to help you out, so do everything in your power to make that as easy as possible.

You're only getting a slightly faster clock speed and drawing more power with the 5770 vs. 5750.

The same memory bandwidth, number of streams processors for OpenCL, etc.

They chose the 5750 to save on Heat and power consumption while retaining the same set up options for OpenGL and OpenCL.

Good choice.

The 5750 has 10% fewer texture units than the 5770 (36 Vs 40) and 10% fewer stream processor (720 Vs 800) as well as lower clock speed and a much lower fill rate. On high resolution screens, this can make a difference between playable and not playable.

...just really wanted a Blu-ray drive...\ so I guess I'll just stick with my current iMac until the beginning of next year and hope for the best that the next iteration includes one.

Apple has really got to get off of this anti-Blu-ray kick as I believe a whole lot of Mac faithful wants the tech inside their Mac hardware. It just seems they (Apple) are blinded by their downloadable movie content paradigm and most certainly the claim of high licensing fees from the BDA (not just Sony, but Panasonic, Philips, Pioneer, etc) is just posturing as these "fees" haven't stopped any other computer manufacturer in putting it in their lineups at a very cheap cost.

At least offer it as a more expensive BTO option, my gosh. It has only been 4/5 years since Blu-ray has been out and the BDA has even simplified its licensing scheme a year ago at an estimated 40%...

The 5750 has 10% fewer texture units than the 5770 (36 Vs 40) and 10% fewer stream processor (720 Vs 800) as well as lower clock speed and a much lower fill rate. On high resolution screens, this can make a difference between playable and not playable.

Of course anyone who typically takes shots at Apple doesn't buy from Dell so it's all moot point... you could newegg that system for dirt cheap. Unfair comparison? Sure.. but you need to realize what people are comparing against Apple before you go off on tangents like this IMHO.

You are omitting lots of things that could greatly alter price should you put it. With W7 Ultimate, an i5 with 2.66, one 5770, card reader, 4Gb of memory, and no FireWire, or Optical Audio, or Wireless/Fancy Mouse and Keyboard, or being an All-in-one, still get you a (slightly better looking and faster) system that is still inferior to the $1999 iMac for $2658.

And people who take shots at Apple rarely are the "LOLZ I GOT IT CHEAPA" kind; those don't even pretend they care about eSATA and whatever, they just drool over CPUs and GPUs.

The people who take shots at Apple are people like kotatsu: they think they are getting a better deal with Dell/Alienware/Whatever and that we are Mac Sheep who pay much more for a pretty logo. They conveniently forget those little big details that make Macs so superior, and actually cheaper.

iPhone 4S 64GB, Black, soon to be sold in favor of a Nokia Lumia 920Early 2010 MacBook Pro 2.4GHz, soon to be replaced with a Retina MacBook Pro, or an Asus U500

Oh dear oh dear, what a muddle. So many fanboys out to defend Apple's refusal to adopt blu-ray and USB 3. "Why would we want these new fangled 'technologies'! Steve tells us they are no good, he is always right. Hail Steve!". Etc.

Okay, here's why blu-ray and USB 3 are good.

Blu-ray - Movies come on blu-ray discs. DVD is on it's way out, blu-ray is it's replacement. Avatar sold 40% of it's units on BD, so this is hardly a niche format with no future. No other format delivers 45mbit 1080p video with lossless 7.1 audio. iTunes downloads, loaded with toxic DRM and at a whopping 5mbit 720p are clearly not comparable. Why would I want to watch a movie on my computer? Perhaps because my wife is using the KURO downstairs, or perhaps I just want to ripp my BDs so I can watch them on my iPhone 4 or iPad.

USB 3 - USB is the standard for external hard drives. Yes there are a few here and there with firewire or eSATA, but USB basically dominates the market. USB 2 is too slow for external hard drives if you transfer a lot of data. Therefore USB 3 is the solution.

I do hope that makes sense, even to the most angry of mac heads. If I were you, I'd take this refusal to properly update the PC line as a clear sign that Apple is beginning it's exit front he PC market altogether. Funnily enough, Dell, HP etc have had BD drives in their PCs for a very, very long time now, perhaps because they actually give a damn about consumer choice and new technology.

I haven't noticed every other machine out there with all of these. It's still fresh tech and there could be licensing and other issues.

Now when you can get them on even the dumpiest of cheapo computers but not Apple, there's a problem.

Quote:

no Blu-ray. WTF?

Why is anyone shocked about this. Jobs has all but said there will never be built in Blu-ray in the Macs. He is going with digital downloads and SD cards. It's clear in his statements and in their actions.

Quote:

Looks like computers are no longer Steve's priority. Only iPads and iPhones

Based on what? That they aren't designing their systems the way you and the supergeeks that make up perhaps 5% of the customer base want them to be designed. Get over it. You and your buddies are a serious minority. And Apple is a business that is about making scads of money, so they are going to design for the bigger group especially in terms of their imacs and laptops. And that group doesn't care about esata, usb 3.0 etc. Nor are they bothered by a lack of blu-ray in their computers cause they would rather watch them on their big 40"+ tvs. Especially since so many blu-rays come with free digital copies for their computers, ipads etc

If you only care about specs Dell is always the way to go. This is a fine engneered computer.

I really have no idea what you are talking about. The iMac looks pretty, if that's what's most important to you, but that fancy metal body won't help much when you try to ripp a BD or plug a UDB 3 hard drive into it.

Specs matter, especially with stuff as absolutely fundamental as optical drives and connectivity.

I asked for Firewire 1600, 3200 and USB 3.0 not eSATA. And of course having a faster connection helps backing up huge data, which is my problem.

But you'd still need a RAID array to really benefit from the faster connection. I didn't look up to your original post and mixed your's with all the ones asking for eSATA in addition to faster FW. At least faster FW would be backward compatible, and so would be more reaonsable request. And you could attached multiple drives to help take up all that extra bandwith that a single drive on an eSATA port wouldn't be able to make use of. But that wouldn't really help you with backups which are likely targeting a single backup target, so you would still likely need a RAID array. And in that case Apple probably considers you outside of their target demographic for the iMac and thinks you should buy a Mac Pro.

Why blame Intel? They couldn't use Via or or NEC controllers to implement it? Motherboards from Asus, MSI, Gigabyte, and others have had USB 3.0 on them for awhile now.

But are they any good. Technically having a feature so you list it on your tech specs isnt the same as having a feature that is viable for your product. Then there is the potential issue of Apple not being able to get enough product from NEC to satisfy their requirements.

For example, when SATAIII came out people expected Apple to jump on that but that tests from AnandTech showed they were often worse than SATAII performance and when better werent reliable or useful enough to recommend.

That may not be the case here, but we need to consider it from Apples perspective.

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

I have been holding back on a Mac desktop hoping for a Blu-ray drive some day soon.
I am really disappointed to have to wait longer.

Prepare to never own a Mac. Because the company is unlikely to ever put a drive (even just a reader) in the machines or even offer native playback. Their own comments and actions have played to this.

The only 'support' is likely to remain in the pro apps as the ability to create the high def video and audio which would then be funnelled into 3rd party apps for disc construction (including menus) and burning on an external drive or 3rd party internal in a Pro tower.

Meanwhile Apple will party into those working on codecs for online video of 'blu-ray' quality without an excess file size overhead.

I do video editing, web design, photography using photoshop and apeture, and some light animation.

Torn between the 21.5" and the 27". If I go 27", I might as well go quad core I guess.

But if I go with the 3.2ghtz 21.5" apple says the i3 is turbo boosted(unlike the base 21.5")....so I was thinking there is no real reason to get the i5 version for $180 more. I mean the diff would seem minor for the above tasks right?

But if I did go with the 27" dual core....would the i5 help since the screen is bigger? Or would it not matter?

Also the 27" wether it's dual or quad core gives you the option for an ATI Radeon 5750 graphics card with 1gb of sdram over the included ATI 5670 with 512mb of sdram. What tasks of the ones I listed above would help the most in?

Lastly...if I went with the 27" without the SSD option, could I add one later to compliment the HDD 1tb drive I'd Get now?

After doing some part to part price comparisons, I found that the base iMac is a little over 200 dollars more expensive than if you built your own computer with identical specs and chips (including OSX, iLife and iWork).

My serious question to all of you Apple fans, what about the computer is worth the extra money to you?

Serious question to Apple haters, is it worth the 200 dollars to build your own and troubleshoot a hackintosh, or linux, or windows?

After doing some part to part price comparisons, I found that the base iMac is a little over 200 dollars more expensive than if you built your own computer with identical specs and chips (including OSX, iLife and iWork).

My serious question to all of you Apple fans, what about the computer is worth the extra money to you?

Serious question to Apple haters, is it worth the 200 dollars to build your own and troubleshoot a hackintosh, or linux, or windows?

After doing some part to part price comparisons, I found that the base iMac is a little over 200 dollars more expensive than if you built your own computer with identical specs and chips (including OSX, iLife and iWork).

My serious question to all of you Apple fans, what about the computer is worth the extra money to you?

Serious question to Apple haters, is it worth the 200 dollars to build your own and troubleshoot a hackintosh, or linux, or windows?

(Me personally, I can see pros and cons to both sides.)

YES! It Would be WORTH $200. Even if I COULD build my own "hackintosh" I WOULDNT. Some people just don't want to slap together their own computer out of various parts a la Frankenstein. Yes, part of it is the clean "look"....but mostly it's the hassle. I don't want to go thru the hassle. I like the simplicity of the all in one iMac, and personally don't want to worry about getting the right components. When I get an iMac, I KNOW it will all work seamlessly. I don't want to create a computer out of hodge podge parts just to save $200. Plus I'd rather use all that time and energy on my creative projects.

According to Apple the 3.2GHz Core i3 supports TurboBoost
According to Intel the 3.2GHz Core i3 does NOT support TurboBoost

One of them isn't telling the truth.

I don't know one way or the other, but this wouldn't be the first time that Apple ordered custom silicon from Intel.

It's possible that only the Apple version of that CPU supports TurboBoost; the same way it was possible that only the Apple version of the 2.0GHz C2D in the mini supported hardware virtualization (i.e. Intel VT-x).

Well, I don't want to buy a compressed crap, sold as HD movie, on iTunes store for 20 bucks, when I can get a true HD movie for 10 bucks. That's called throwing away your money on utter shit.

Apple is not expecting the family to gather around the computer to watch a movie. Sony is (with their TV and Blu-Ray player). Apple expects you to download the movie and watch it on an airplane or commuter train. Sony is not.

I agree that Blu-Ray should be left to the TV. I also agree that it's ridiculous that the MacPro does not come with a Blu-Ray recorder. Give the pros the option to choose which media they want.